Israelis-Palestinians: two questions

[Waverly]

Waverly and I have had a discussion about this previously

Ah yes. The time I said I didn't think it likely CE and I would ever really disagree...

[Morlock]

Today a quote from the Dalai Lama (I'm pretty sure it was him) kept on resurfacing in my thoughts (I'm paraphrasing):
"In an argument, never bring up past arguments" (I'm sure the original was million times more poetic, but you get the jist of it. I'd be glad to get the correct quote)

I don't know if this has anything to do with the current topic, but I was just thinking about it.
(I am not the best at structuring, so I'll just be dishing out my thoughts in the order they come in)

Whenever a thread comes up on the subject, I always try to make this point clear:
Palestinians target and kill Israeli civilians.
Israel targets terrorist and murderers, and by accident kill civilians.
Palestinians praise the murderers.
Israel apologizes and launches an investigation.
This is all it boils down to here.

If Israelis stop getting murdered, Palestinians stop getting killed.
There should be a clear distinction- murders, kills.

Not in a billion years will violence bring about a Palestinian state. The Palestinians are not only shooting themselves in the foot, but shooting Israelis in the head, and getting themsleves, their families, and their neigbors shot in return shot in return.

It has been proven that if Israel leaves Palestinian towns and stops killing terrorists- the terrorist still murder civilians.
It also has been proven that Israel entering these towns, getting rid of these terrorists and blockading the towns does significantly decrease the amount of terrorist bombings and shootings.

The Palestinians would have had a state if they stuck to peaceful ways.
In the Oslo treaties, Israel gave the PLO guns. Somehow, the Hamas and Fatah(SP) got these guns, and used them to kill Israelis.

I am an Israeli civilian. I've had family members, friends and neigbors murderes while going about there lives. One of them happens to be a soldier who refused to enter Palestinian towns and be part of the killing of Palestinian civilians.
I am extremely proud of my army and it's history- which in my eyes is the best achievment by any army ever. Everytime I read about the Six Day War, I feel a great swell of pride and feel like laughing out loud at that imbecile SOB Nasser and his oblitirated air force.
I can understand when a soldier is killed on duty. He did his job- died for his country while trying to defend it.

Now- the following paragraph is not just me trying to look objective, but my honest to god thoughts. I am subjective, have every reason to be, and I think my country is on the side of right (Relativly, at least).

A few months back there was this group of ultra-orthadox settlers who were arrested and charged with planting a bomb at a Palestinian school.
I never go to protests. I am too specific to join just about every politicaly inclined group.
But I went to protest these men's actions.
This event was, as far as I'm concerned, the lowest point of the past 25 months.
I wish that they would have been strung up and hanged right on the spot.
There is nothing worse IMO than the deliberate killing of children. Children are innocent, irrelevent of their actions. Planting a bomb intended to kill any civilians, particulaly children is deplorable. And the reason this is so much worse than any of the suicide bombings is that I concider all Israelis to be on an infinetly higher moral ground than the terrorist scum.
And for the record- I am against the settlments. I do believe that from inception they have been terrible for both sides.
the only reason I don't think they should be unanimously abolished is that there a five or so that contain many family members and friends, and I think that not dislocating another 75,000 families in these five places is something that is not too unreasonable. (I am aware of the valid argument "several hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were dislocated in '67", but I think that this conflict doesn't need another 75,000 angry people on top of it. They can be worked around)

And being invloved in this situation for 25 months (or my entire life, depends how you look at it) I must say about the Geneva convention: Easier said than done.
In the Six day war three arab countries joined in a war to oblitirate and conquer Israel- something clearly in violation of the convention. They lost miserebly. I have no sympathy for someone who tries to kill me and take my home, then, when he lost the war and his part of his own home asks 'I know I tried to kill you and take your home, but could I have back what I lost?' You must pay for your failed attempts to conquer someone elses country.

The geneva convention, the Hague International war crimes court, The Oslo peace accords, the Madrid summit, and even the UN have all failed to face the reality of this very complicated, and surely one of a kind dispute which has been going on for a the better part of a century (or much longer, depending on how you look at it).
I am not saying that the principals these treaties represent arn't important, far from it, but that there many variables, and that a treaty that condemns a country killing a terrorist but has nothing
to say regarding the terrorist killing innocent civilians obviously needs to be revisited. The UN doesn't stop the Palestinians, nor the geneva convention, nor the PLO. Israel must defend itself.

I do not see a visible end or any salution amiable to both parties, but I do whole heartedly say that the first step is the cessation of terrorist activity. Because, despite the fact that "it doesn't matter who started it", Israel has only used violence after the terrorists.

I would like to end this by comending Lattiz for being one of the first (The first?) person to start a thread supporting Israel. the Palestinian civilian side is a very worthy one, just as worthy as the Israeli one, but certaintly each side desrves at least a thread in it's support.

And before you go on attacking my points one by one, please take a minute to remember that this is a situation I live in every day, and think about the possibilty of blowing up on the #6 bus , which I take every day, and was bombed twice, or eating luch at Sbarro's on a hot August day which has been bombed and shot at, or sitting down for a holiday dinner when a terrorist comes in and kills entire families. I do not know of anyone else on these boards who could fully understand the perdiciment.

[VoodooDali]

@Morlock: haven't seen you in a while! I sorta know how you feel - since I live in the NYC area, I get miffed when people in other states talk about how we need to be in this war against iraq as some sort of revenge for 9/11, knowing that it probably will increase terrorism over here - and a lot of NYers feel (myself included) that we will most likely be the future targets. So, anyway, it's easy to pose solutions from a safe distance.

Curious what you'd think about this article I read today:
A Jewish Renewal Understanding of the State of Israel

[Scayde]

Warning !!! Personal Opinion to Follow


First of all, I want to let Morlock know that I feel a great deal of hurt for what he and his countrymen endure each and every day. (Both Israeli and Palestinian alike) I grew up in a strange situation. An American family victimized by a terrorist. My sister was blown out of her bed when a bomb exploded outside our bedroom window where we slept. On three different occasions our homes were bombed with plastique explosives. 3 times moltoff c0cktails were hurled through windows into the living room where we sat watching TV at night. 3 kidnapping attempts mad on me, my brother and sister. 3 cars blown to bits while thankfully they sat empty in parking lots or garages. This all happened over a period of 15 years. We never knew when or where it would happen next. We moved many times trying to escape our persecutor. Who ever it was always found us. The person who did this was never found or arrested. 20 years ago the terror stopped. I guess who ever it was died. I only say this to you all because unless you have experienced it for yourself, it is as Morlock and Voo have stated, all too easy to comment from detached security of 'someone else's problem'

@ Waverly: Brilliant post. I agree with everything you wrote, and would only sully it by my feeble attempts to add to it.

For what it is worth, and I am not speaking for "Americans", only for my self, I find a drastic difference in the actions of Israel and the Palestinians. The difference is as Morlock said. Intent. When a terrorist intends to murder randomly for shock and terror he is committing a certain level of crime which in my opinion, is not justifiable no matter what the reason. If a person decides for what ever reason to commit such an act, he becomes an enemy of humanity. When the militia is sent in to bring this man to justice, and his neighbors harbor him and hide him from the authorities, they become his accomplices. When the military goes in with force, and those neighbors are killed in the crossfire, it is unfortunate, but they have put themselves in that position. Are these civilian deaths? Yes and no. They are not members of a recognized military group. They are civilians. They are acting in armed revolt against a specific target group or nation, they are a military unit. They are acting in the perceived interest of their community by taking up arms against a perceived enemy. They are a militia. They are acting in rebellion of their government. They are revolutionaries. They are people who have chosen murder as their preferred means of communication. They are thugs and criminals.

What do I think about the settlers in the 'occupied territory"?1967: In the six days war,Syria, Egypt and Jordan invaded in an attempt to destroy a sovereign nation. They failed in their attempt to destroy Israel and in the process lost the territories of the West Bank, Gaza strip and Golan heights. I fail to see how this is any different than the way Europe was redrawn after WW l. When Hitler tried to reclaim what was lost, it started WW ll. Rather or not that aggression was justified was wholly dependent on whose side you stood. To most Germans, he was a hero at the time. To most Europeans, he was a villain. The only difference I see here is that Germany is a sovereign nation who went after former territory. Palestine has never been a sovereign nation. Syria, Egypt and Jordan lost the land to Israel, not Palestine.

Do the Palestinians have a 'right' to a state of their own? IMO, no. The "Palestinians were not even a people until the creation of Israel. They are Arab immigrants into the area. There was no Palestinian nation, nor are the Palestinians a nationality.

Is it desirable for the Palestinians to have a state of their own? IMO yes. The Palestinians have, since the inception of Israel, become a cohesive people with a sense of unity and national identity, a distinct culture which clashes with the government of Israel and because of which will always lead to their oppression.

Does the amount of aid given to Israel matter to me? No, not a hill of beans. Who the US gives money to is strictly the business of the US and her citizens. If the citizens of the US do not like where their money is being spent, let them say so in the voting box. IMO, It is none of any body else's business.


Are my views base in any way on the accords, conventions, or international laws that have been passed? No, they are solely based on my sense of justice and what is right and wrong. I do not expect, nor am I concerned if anyone agrees with me, I can not defend my position, nor will I try.

[fable]

Originally posted by Waverly
Are you sure you disagree, Fable? I gave the voting block reason in the next paragraph, under 'less savory' reasons.

I agree with your post, save that one paragraph I quoted. I personally believe most US politicians are simply influenced by the need to get the vote, and nothing else matters on this extremely complex international issue where there's right and grievous crimes on both sides.

[Chanak]

@Scayde: Beautifully written, Scayde. And we are in agreement. *kiss*

@Morlock: There are many reasons why I like Israel. Chief amongst them: you and your countrymen are indeed a brave people. What Israelis have faced since the founding of your nation has required great sacrifice and inner strength to remain whole and cohesive through it all. What you face now, every day, requires the same thing. I salute you, Morlock.

I entered this thread earlier on the wrong foot, having misinterpreted Dottie's post on a small point. It still doesn't change my overall opinion...and it has indeed been stated well already.

[frogus]

This is what I think:

Scayde and Morlock have made points about the chivalry of war. Morlock seems to believe that because the killing of Palestinians is done by IDF (who claim to never target civillians, despite what appears to actually be the case), whereas the killing of Israelis is done by suicide bombers who have no problem with targeting civilians, that the Palestinians have no moral ground to stand on.

I think that there is no real line here; Dottie seems to think that, because Israel is the unjustified aggressor, the Palestinians are forgiven in using many barbarous tactics which they use, while Scayde seems to think that, because the Palestinians use barbarous tactics they are wrong, no matter what has happened before.

I believe that the Israeli oppression itself, as a concerted act of many people, is more morally repugnant than suicide bombing.

When all is said and done, history will forget whether children were killed, or adults...When a man blows himself up in a crowded street, he causes misery for many families, for many years...he worsens the political situation, he destroys his own life...And all because he feels agreived at what his people have suffered, and thinks he can help to drive out the oppressors.

But when the Israeli military bulldoze homes to make way for Zionist settlers, they create so much more misery. Apart from the families who are crushed in their houses, they cause hundreds more deaths which are inevitable from the Palestinians fighting to get their land back...they perpetuate the struggle for another year, in which hundreds more will die...

...and what is the reason for this?

My point is that the method by which people are killed is largely irrelevant. Killing kids is no worse than killing adults, and bombing someone is no worse than crushing them under tanks. Whether it is the military or the police, or a guerilla fighter, a death is a death, in terms of what suffering it causes. The important thing is that the Israeli nation (each individual contributing to the whole occupation) have caused much more death and suffering than the Palestinian nation. Therefore their crime is worse.

[C Elegans]

Since the opinions you posted are based on your personal feelings I will not reply other than to this factual error:

Originally posted by Scayde

Do the Palestinians have a 'right' to a state of their own? IMO, no. The "Palestinians were not even a people until the creation of Israel. They are Arab immigrants into the area. There was no Palestinian nation, nor are the Palestinians a nationality.

Both Jews and Palestinians are semite people, their common ancestor is the Caanite people who came to the area around 3000 BC. If you mean that the Arab invasion in the 7th century AD is the immigration that lessens the Palestininas right to their country, then you do realise that you and all other white Americans have even less right you your country since you immigrated from Europe considerably later?

However, read some history :
here

[Dottie]

@Fable&Waverly: If your way of determine who is right and who is wrong here is to compare history of misdeeds, I do think the issue is debatable. Im not sure I agree with you, but Im not sure I disagree either.

However, Imo that is not the issue here, nor the way to solve the crisis. I think you have to look at what type of action causes what here, and if you do remove the palestine attacks I do agree the Israeli attacks would indeed stop, but not that the settlers will leave or that those critical areas will be returned and the refugees allowed home as a consequence. Any soultion that does not start with the cease of Israeli occupation is bound to fail imo.



@Voodoodali: Im not sure what in my post that was ambigous, but I'll try to explaine my view on attacks on settlers and you can say if that answers your question?

Palestine are in fact living with an exploiting occupying power, wich imo makes it morally justifieable to fight for your freedom. The question here is who is a valid target in that fight and who is not. To me, I think a valid target in this sense must fullfill two criterias.

• Removing of it must contribute to the set goal. This can be debated if it really does in the case of Palestine/Israel, but its another debate and I think you can guess my view on the subject.
• The target must be morally responsible for the situation at hand. Israeli settlers does have a choice about being settlers, they also have the information neccessary to determine if what they do is right or not. Imo if they do make the chocie to move into a settlement with the knowledge of the misery this cause, and thereby support this behaviour I do think that they fulfill this criteria too.

@Frogus: The reason why I exclude children is that imo they dont fulfill the second criteria, it cant be assumed that they can take responsibility for their choice to be settlers. If this was not the case I would have agreed with you on that a death is a death.

But I dont think you can determine morale here by counting deaths. The soviet intervention in Afghanistan wasnt immoral beacuse they killed more than they got killed, it was immoral beacuse they were the aggressive power.



@Littiz: It is true that the attacks are not in response to any imidiate threat, they are a respons to demographical warfare.

Second, the difference between immigration and occupation should be obvious to everyone. Personaly Im all for free immigration everywhere, I do think its horribel when Iranian homosexuals are denied political asylum etc. But this isnt a question about immigration, The settlers have taken land by force, and driven away those who live there. If they were to simply wish to be a part of palestine and would move there as individuals rather than comming with the backing of israel millitary power, Ignoring palestine gouvernment etc my view on the subject would be different.

[Gruntboy]

Who are y'all to talk about misery and moral repugnancy? Do any of you live in a Palestinian camp? Have any of you lost relatives to a suicide bomber?

By Frogus:

I believe that the Israeli oppression itself, as a concerted act of many people, is more morally repugnant than suicide bombing.

That's real nice of you Frogus, that makes it all OK then. Call George Bush and pull the troops out BTW, Forgus thinks it is morally repugnant.

I don't think any of you understand the animalistic, base, human evil that makes people want to butcher each other, do you? Why take sides when they're all equally undeserving and there's not a thing us insignificant puny mortals can do about it (unless, of course, we have ideas above our station?).

For me, its a constant daily struggle to reign in the more unsavoury aspects of my soul (or lack thereof).

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by Gruntboy
Who are y'all to talk about misery and moral repugnancy? Do any of you live in a Palestinian camp? Have any of you lost relatives to a suicide bomber?

Personal experience of the in vivo situation is not necessary to form an opinion. Shall we demand that everybody who is against nazism must have lost relatives and family in the Holocaust?

[Mr Sleep]

My opinoin, short and sweet:

Isrealis: Wrong to be oppressing a group of people who claim to be a nation. Give them somewhere to go.

Palastinians: Wrong to blow up civilians and use suicide bomb tactics. Change your methods, you already have the backing and sympathy of many.

There is more to it than that but as far as I'm concerned both are wrong and until they wake up and realise that they are just purpetuating hate and destruction nothing will be solved.

I'm currently a bit busy, so I apologise for the lousy commentary.

[Littiz]

Originally posted by Dottie
Second, the difference between immigration and occupation should be obvious to everyone.

No it isn't.
As I said, it's only a matter of scale. Immigrants occupy places and space, and many
citizens may see it as something they have no right to do.
Many indeed see things that way, there are even political factions which build on this.
Moreover, I spoke about clandestines. What about them? They come here with no legitimacy
at all.
I don't see so many differences with the case of the settlers. Many italians have lost their
(poor) jobs, 'cause immigrants were so many and their work costed nothing, and government has
been forced to regularize even a great part of the irregulars (killing them or arresting them all
not being an option).
Have I the right to kill them arbitrarily, to free the space they occupy without right in my
nation and in my society (retoric question)?

Frogus, I feel sympathy for you (we have similar minds after all ), but I have really to say that
I am in strong disagreement with every single point of your post.
I don't have the time to list them all, but well..
First, kids have higher value than adults for me: it's hard to explain what is the correct interpretation
for this statement (let's say it regards continuity, hope for the future and the animal instinct we
feel to preserve the prole), but mostly, kids are surely innocents
(yet..)
Second, I think I answer in Morlock place: Israeli militians don't *try* to raze buildings with people
inside, they give *warnings*, and try to hit only terrorists.
And the civilians killed are either killed by accident, or 'cause they are actively reacting to protect
terrorists (Scayde brillantly explained the point).
Even considering these acts of the Israeli government as crimes, the deliberate struggle to kill civilians,
(which may have the most distant position from their government), is a supremely worse act.
Even worse the fact that a large part of the Palestinians actively or passively support those acts,
even, terribly worse the fact that so called "religious leaders" try to use despair and religion
as leverage, "educating" minds (immediately in the first years of life), convincing them that the highest
thing they can ever achieve is to commit suicide in order to kill as many civilians as they can.

This all again, it's not said to prove that Palestianians earn nothing.
I believe, as Scayde, that things have to be solved the "good" way. I agree with Mr. Sleep's post.
So, please, enough with the argument "israelis deserve it!"
Because when such an argument is used, it would be far too easy to reply
"and their opponents deserve it as well! Or more!".
For me at least. That was the point of the thread, in truth

[fable]

Originally posted by Littiz
No it isn't.
As I said, it's only a matter of scale. Immigrants occupy places and space, and many
citizens may see it as something they have no right to do.

There is still a difference under law between immigration and occupation, and that difference matters a great deal. For example, @Littiz, Italy has accepted quite a lot of immigrants, and that has generated a good deal of negative comment. But I think we both know it wouldn't begin to compare to the condition of the Italian States in the 17th century, when France and Spain simply marched their troops into different cities and claimed possession, installing their own puppet regimes. There is nothing remotely similar between the two conditions. Note, I'm not suggesting immigration is an easy or even attractive process, but we need to be clear about our terms. It will make discussion a helluva lot easier if we discuss the benefits and drawbacks of immigration without trying to reveal the negative emotional impact by calling it "occupation."

As for the rest, Israel and Palestine are currently at war, IMO. It is a low key war, because neither combatant wants to attract the world attention that a fullscale war would bring; too many possible unpleasant consequences for all involved. But it's still war, in all respects, fought on every front--military, geographical, economic, political, and especially public relations. Do we think the US and Iraq are playing news games to their respective audiences? They have nothing on the tactics of the Israeli and Palestinian governments. Who needs a new timetable from Dubya, a man who thinks Israel can do no wrong? They already have the Mitchell Plan, which both sides agreed was workable. Neither wishes to implement it first, or at the same time as the other side. Like WWI, I think this particular war represents a governmental failure from above, a failure of will between people who have simply given up on the idea that their respective cultures *must live together.*

And until governments are installed that will seriously deal with this on both sides, innocent people will die. I don't want to hear justifications about the Israelis only responding to violence, or about Palestinians only responding to 50 years of having their land stolen and their rights eroded. Plenty enough blame to go around, IMO, at the top levels.

[Waverly]

Dottie: I’m not saying that because I find Palestinian methods more violent and indiscriminant than the Israeli’s that I don’t find fault with both. I do. The occupation you speak of is itself a defense (or perhaps a retaliation) for continued attacks even as peace talks were taking place. Perhaps if Israel withdrew to its original borders, all would be well, but 1) The Palestinians have almost dared Israel to escalate, and haven’t shown any real commitment to a give and take. 2) Sharon is too much of a warmonger. I think Arafat is common thug. These two would be incapable of splitting a bar tab, let alone negotiate peace.

[Littiz]

I know Fable, I was provoking. I welcome immigrants, actually my parents give work (and activaly helped in regularizing, more than they were asked to) two of them.
I considered the argument pro-right to kill settlers pretty weak, and still, on the matter, if I speak
about *clandestine* immigrants, I think some similarities (i.e. right to be here and the rest) show up.
Nonetheless, people have to try reach convivence, not to find arguments to push those people out, or, heck,
kill them.
I hope Dottie will reconsider

[Dottie]

Originally posted by fable
-snip- I don't want to hear justifications about the Israelis only responding to violence, or about Palestinians only responding to 50 years of having their land stolen and their rights eroded. Plenty enough blame to go around, IMO, at the top levels.

I just want to make clear that my reason for having these opinions are not that I think someone has a score to settle or that its just their rightfull revenge etc. I understand that you still disagree with my views, but I just hope Im not missinterpreted here.


@Waverly: I guess our view begin to differ at the point of the reasons for occupation then. I do think that water is one of the primary causes for the occupation, not defence/retaliation.

On the subject of both leaders ineptitude I do agree with you, Though I would probably classify Arafat more as a corrupt political opportunist than a thug.


@Littiz: Dottie will not reconsider. I still think that the difference is huge, And I do think that the argument can be stretched even furter if one would want to. I wont do that though.

But I apreciate the way you're handling to you obviously repulsive views.

[Mr Sleep]

Originally posted by Waverly
they do not engage in, nor support terror

Apart from the state sanctioned oppressive kind obviously

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
Apart from the state sanctioned oppressive kind obviously

I am in total agreement with Sleep. There are plenty of independant reports from aid organisation, UN and HRW to support the view that Israel is indeed targeting civilians intentionally, which is defined as a terrorist method. Thus, Israel is executing state terrorism.

[Mr Sleep]

Originally posted by C Elegans
I am in total agreement with Sleep. There are plenty of independant reports from aid organisation, UN and HRW to support the view that Israel is indeed targeting civilians intentionally, which is defined as a terrorist method. Thus, Israel is executing state terrorism.

Apparently (strong emphasis on) the Israelis have said that for every Israeli that gets killed in a suicide attack they will kill 5 Palestinians.